Remember to login before you can view the full description of a study, submit a study, or post topics to the discussion forum.
Added: November 8, 2022
Updated: November 16, 2022
This project investigates how Postdoc researchers value and trade off the different characteristics of (potential) research positions (length of position, salary, location, reputation of research group etc) using a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE); how Principal Investigators value and trade off the characteristics of Postdoc positions for different applicants (through interviews or a a separate DCE and examine longitudinal employment data on research positions in universities. We will combine these sources to explore what feasible options exist for improving the career stability of Postdoc researchers. Our initial research will identify the key drivers of position selection through interviews and focus groups. We will use then quantify these insights using discrete choice experiments and investigate whether the valuations and trade-offs are affected by demographic characteristics of the researchers and principal investigators.
Added: November 8, 2022
Updated: November 16, 2022
Using live recruitments at the University of Cambridge, this project investigates the effect of CV format on shortlisting decisions for Postdoc recruitment, and ithe causes of any differences. Applicants will be asked to submit a Narrative CV (in the Résumé for Research and Innovation format) alongside their standard academic CV. Two application packages (ie CV + covering letter + additional materials) will be produced for each candidate - one with the Narrative CV, one with the Standard CV. These packages will be independently ranked to test if the format of the CV affects the order of the ranking. The whole panel will then be given both application packages; repeat the shortlisting; and then follow the usual processes for interviewing and offering an appointment. To add depth to our observations, we will interview a sample of applicants and recruiting researchers to explore their experiences of preparing and reviewing the different CV formats.
Added: November 1, 2022
Updated: November 1, 2022
There has been a growing focus on improving the informed consent process for research. However, some people with problems with their memory or understanding may lack capacity to provide consent for themselves. In these situations, a proxy decision-maker (usually a family member) is needed to help make a decision about whether they take part or not. Involving proxies can be challenging, which contributes to people with incapacity being under-represented in research. Our previous study found that it was difficult for some family members to make a decision, and they experienced an emotional and decisional burden as a result. Families thought that greater support when making decisions about research would help. This led us to develop the first decision support tool for family members making decisions about research. This tool was found to be acceptable and we now need to test whether it is an effective form of support. We have also conducted further work to explore how to measure its effectiveness through establishing which outcomes matter, to whom, and why (COnSiDER Study). This project will explore whether the support tool is effective, what factors affect this, and how much it costs. This will be done using a Study Within a Trial (SWAT) which is a self contained research study that is embedded within a host trial/trials with the aim of evaluating a particular trial process.
Added: November 1, 2022
Updated: November 1, 2022
Trial participants need to represent those in society who are intended to benefit from the outcomes of the trial. The groups needing representation most will vary from trial to trial. An under-served group for one type of trial may be very different to that of another. Reasons for why under-served groups are not included in some research can be complex, but solutions to resolve inclusion barriers are easier to determine if considered from the outset of a trial. Intersectionality goes a step further in recognising that there may be multiple factors (for example ethnicity and gender) that combine and lead to disadvantage or discrimination. This theory describes how individuals may be affected by a range of different interlocking systems of power at the same time, which dictate their own unique experiences of discrimination. As researchers, we must consider everything and anything that can marginalise people from participating in a trial – gender, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, physical ability, migrant status, etc.
A few tools have recently been developed called the INCLUDE Frameworks (see https://www.trialforge.org/trial-forge-centre/diversity/) to help trial teams to think about how their design decisions might make it easy or difficult for some groups to take part. Each Framework focuses on an individual under-served group. At present there are ones focused on ethnicity, adults with impaired capacity to consent and socioeconomic disadvantage, and more are in development. However, there is a risk that trialists may become overwhelmed with the number of Frameworks available, and any intersectionality that exists between the groups may be missed if overlap is not thoughtfully considered.
Added: October 24, 2022
Updated: October 24, 2022
The review is intended to be a brief overview of practice and research within the academic-policy engagement space that includes principles around Equality/Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, with the aim to then delve deeper into the under-researched area of lived experience through a survey and series of interviews. The study has three objectives:
To conduct a rapid review and realist interviews
To highlight strategies that have successfully embedded EDI principles as well as identify those that need further development.
To develop a conceptual framework for policy engagement strategies that embed EDI principles based on the Standpoint, Intersectionality and Pluriverse theoretical approaches
Added: October 24, 2022
Updated: October 24, 2022
The Government’s Research and Development Roadmap sets out a commitment to “require that research outputs funded by the UK government are freely available to the taxpayer who funds research”. In Autumn of 2020, the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) ran a consultation to inform the review of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) OA Policy. The consultation gathered views from a wide range of stakeholders, including members of the public. A survey focussed on opportunities and barriers of OA, and gathered specific views on the existing NIHR OA policy and on proposed policy options. In addition, DHSC was particularly interested in capturing a diversity of public views to understand how research can be better accessed to maximise its reach, value and impact. Thus, a workshop to capture public perspectives on the OA policy (including research contributors and participants, evidence users and beneficiaries) was also conducted. Findings of the consultation are summarised in a report available in the NIHR official website and the NIHR Open Research platform (see for instance: https://www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/knowledge-is-power-public-perspectives-on-open-access-publishing/28787).
Added: September 29, 2022
Updated: September 29, 2022
Healthcare professionals encounter barriers to accessing research evidence. This includes limited time and opportunity to access relevant literature and the amount of research evidence and guidelines available. Social media offers new possibilities for disseminating scientific evidence because it is not limited in time and space and offers healthcare professionals an efficient way of researching and interpreting a large volume of research evidence.
This two-phase study will (i) identify and synthesize published studies on the effectiveness of social media as a method of disseminating research evidence, and (ii) explore the views, experiences and acceptability of social media as a source of healthcare research evidence to healthcare professionals
Added: September 29, 2022
Updated: September 29, 2022
The study explored whether a narrative CV is an efficient and effective mechanism for the NIHR to collect information about applicants and/or teams as part of the NIHR research application and assessment process. The study involved two stages. The first consisted in secondary analysis of data collected by the Royal Society from their work on research culture and the subsequent development of the Résumé for Researchers. The second stage consisted of thematic analysis of focus groups and interviews with NIHR stakeholders: (1) early career successful and unsuccessful applicants; (2) mid/senior career successful and unsuccessful applicants; (3) NIHR funding committee programme directors, chairs, and deans; (4) NIHR committee members/interview panellists; (5) external reviewers and (6) NIHR Coordinating Centre staff involved in research and training programmes. This study was part of a wider programme of work to explore the use of narrative CVs within the NIHR. The study was given ethics approval from the Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton (id: 66298). Following analysis, the study made thirty-seven recommendations across six areas: Broad considerations for implementation; Training and guidelines for content; Reviewing current practices to embed narrative principles; NIHR role in wider adoption of narrative CV principles; Monitoring, evaluation, and learning; Purpose: What a narrative CV is and why NIHR is implementing it. These recommendations informed discussions regarding the policy and practice of using narrative CV by the NIHR, and emphasise the need to consider the recommendations and complete piloting and evaluation before a decision on implementation is made. This work was part of a wider programme in the NIHR related to the use of narrative CVs.
Added: September 15, 2022
Updated: May 11, 2023
Reporting is a mechanism for funding organisations to monitor and manage the progress, outputs, outcomes and impacts of the research they fund. Inconsistent approaches to reporting and post-award management, and a growing demand for research information, can lead to perception of unnecessary administrative effort that impacts on decision-making and research activity. Identifying this effort, and what stakeholders see as unmet need for improvement, is crucial if funders and Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are to streamline their practices and provide better support with reporting activities. In this review, we summarise the processes in post-award management, compare current practices, and explore the purpose of collecting information on funded research. We also identify areas where unnecessary effort is perceived and improvement is needed, using previously reported solutions to inform recommendations for funders and HEIs.
Methods: We conducted a scoping review of the relevant research and grey literature. Electronic searches of databases, and manual searches of journals and funder websites, resulted in inclusion of 52 records and 11 websites. Information on HEI and funder post-award management processes was extracted, catalogued, and summarised to inform discussion.
Results: Post-award management is a complex process that serves many purposes but requires considerable effort, particularly in the set up and reporting of research. Perceptions of unnecessary effort stem from inefficiencies in compliance, data management and reporting approaches, and there is evidence of needed improvement in mechanisms of administrative support, research impact assessment, monitoring, and evaluation. Solutions should focus on integrating digital systems to reduce duplication, streamlining reporting methods, and improving administrative
resources in HEIs.
Conclusions: Funders and HEIs should work together to support a more efficient post-award management process. The value of research information, and how it is collected and used, can be improved by aligning practices and addressing the specific issues highlighted in this review.
Added: August 15, 2022
Updated: September 14, 2022
Background: Recruitment is the Achilles heel of clinical trials. Failure to recruit the sample size jeopardises the reliability of results and wastes a significant amount of time and resources. Site feasibility assessments are a common tool employed by sponsors to assess a site’s recruitment potential and ability to undertake the clinical trial protocol. The purpose of this study is to evaluate site feasibility procedures as a tool for predicting recruitment potential.
Methods: We conducted site feasibility with thirty-nine sites across the UK. Twenty-seven were selected to participate in the CapaCiTY (01/02/03) program; three randomised controlled trials aiming to develop an evidence based chronic constipation (CC) treatment pathway for adults. We compared site feasibilities predicted recruitment rates with actual recruitment rates and conducted a telephone survey to understand the barriers to recruitment.
Results: Sites did not accurately predict their recruitment potential during site feasibility. Conducting site feasibility did not result in the trials reaching the required sample size. At the time of survey, 17% of sites in CapaCiTY01 were meeting recruitment targets, 83% were recruiting half or less than half their target. Of these, 17% recruited no participants. In CapaCiTY02, 13% of sites were recruiting to target, 87% were recruiting half or less than half, of these, 25% recruited no participants. In CapaCiTY03, 14% of sites were recruiting to target, 86% recruited half or less than half the target, of these 43% recruited none. The main barriers to recruitment were lack of resources and study design not being compatible with routine care.
Conclusions Improving the reliability of site feasibility assessment could potentially save hundreds of millions of pounds each year in failed investments and speed up the time to delivery of new treatments for patients. We recommend 1) conducting site feasibility assessment at the pre-award stage. 2) investment in training researchers in conducting and completing site feasibility. 3) sample size feasibility assessment based on country-specific disease prevalence and epidemiology data 4) funders to include clinical trial feasibility specialists on peer review and grants panels 5) development of a national database of sites previous trial recruitment performance.